Solutions to the Logical Problem of the Trinity (Dr. Eric Yang)

0:00 Intro
2:04 Is the doctrine of the Trinity ignored in the church today?
4:33 What does traditional Christianity require believing about the Trinity?
5:52 What is the logical problem of the Trinity?
11:53 What are some views/analogies of the Trinity that we should try to avoid?
17:15 Does scripture gives us a coherent model of the Trinity?
20:50 Overview of the 3 Types of Solutions
34:10 Discussion of Leftow’s TimeTravel Analogy
36:17 Discussion of Cerberus and Conjoined Twins Analogy
41:17 Discussion of Perichoresis
44:15 Discussion of Relative Identity and Constitutive Views
50:57 Q1- What are examples of historical theologians who used analogies for the Trinity
52:12 Q2- Can you define a spiritual substance?
53:30 Q3- What does “lead to” or “proceed from” language mean in the context of the Trinity?
56:44 Q4- What is the best book on the logical coherence of the Trinity?
59:06 Q5- Fred Sanders work on the Trinity
1:00:16 Summary/Final Thoughts on the Interview

In this video Dr. Eric Yang (professor of philosophy at Santa Clara University) presents the logical problem of the Trinity, and summarizes several different solutions offered by a variety of philosophical theologians.

Check out Dr. Yang's excellent book, "An Introduction to Christian Philosophical Theology"

For more on Dr. Yang go to

Please consider supporting The Analytic Christian on Patreon. Just go to

[Jesus_is_Lord-]

May God bless your channel. Thank you for those timestamps!

[crit_cannon]

This was super good. I appreciate you doing this

[Keinho]

I recently tried “came up” with the Cerberus analogy and was recommended this video by a popular TikToker. Haven’t finished the video yet but looking forward to watching

[phillwithskill]

Hey @TAC, you got to bring Dr. Beau Branson on to discuss Monarchical Trinitarianism (An Eastern-Cappadocian model of the Trinity).

[ShaunCKennedyAuthor]

I think there is actually a really good analogy in numbers.

Five shares a substance with Three that it does not share with 3 or III.

Three shares a substance with 3 that it does not share with V or 5.

V is the same thing as Five is the same thing as 5. They all represent a specific number.

V is the same thing as X is the same thing as III. They are all Roman numerals.

But there’s no sense in which V is 3. One represents one number, one represents another number. One is a Roman numeral and one is an Arabic numeral. They don’t share a substance at all.

But V isn’t “half Roman numeral” and “half number.” It’s entirely a Roman numeral and it’s entirely a number.

When you have I II III IV ? VI, it’s totally correct to answer V but not 5. This is because V shares the substance that the list is looking for.

When you have 1 2 3 4 ? 6, it’s correct to answer 5 but not V. This is because 5 shares the substance that the list is looking for.

I bought the book in Kindle
An Introduction to Christian Philosophical Theology

[bds]

This raises many difficult questions:
1) What does it mean to be a being? Wouldn't having a unique perspective entail that you are a unique being? If so, then multiple unique divine perspectives = multiple divine beings = polytheism.
2) What does it mean to have a soul? If the soul just is the first person perspective, then multiple perspectives = multiple souls (=multiple beings?). But if the soul is distinct from the mind, then we have two immaterial things: the immaterial mind plus the immaterial soul. But if the soul is distinct from the mind, then the soul is unconscious. But then what distinguishes the soul from nothing at all? Surely we don't want to say the soul is the essence (the unique combination of properties) of something, because that would mean rocks, trees, etc have souls. Also, we don't want to duplicate properties like omnipotence, which would be polytheism.
3) If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all share the same soul, then that would mean the Holy Spirit has a spirit, and it is this second spirit that all the persons share. Is there any biblical support for the idea that the Holy Spirit has a spirit, rather than just being a spirit itself (the shared spirit of Christ & the Father)? But if the Holy Spirit is the unconscious shared spirit of the Son and the Father, then that would be a binitarian model...

[SaltyPalamite]

"If anyone shall say that, in Divine Revelation, there are no mysteries, truly and properly so-called, but that all of the doctrines of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles, by properly-cultivated reason; let him be anathema." Dei Filius, Dogmatic Constitution of the First Vatican Council, Canon IV.1.

[ricardooliveira]

WLC actually answered a similar question about twins and trinity in his questions of the week

[norulshahlamjohn]

this title should be renamed "Proposed solutions to the logical problem of trinity"

the beauty of trinity - the more u explain the more confusing it gets

[RayJosephine-md]

Question Super good description. The only thing that doesn’t make sense is like you said three equals one.

Also, how in the Old Testament it says you should worship no other gods before me which means only worship God, so it doesn’t make any sense if Jesus is God‘s son.

Have grown up my whole life in church traditional Anglican church, which acknowledges the Trinity a lot, and have visited the Catholic Church a lot too and ever since I was 15 going through the confirmation process have questioned that my whole life.

[Kvothe]

Oh I have wondered about this (and maybe tossed it at a Christian or two), looking forward to hearing your thinking.

[squirrelknight]

14:24 St. Patrick's Bad Analogies
from LutheranSatire?

[maxspringer]

None of the solutions solve anything though, and it's obvious as soon as they are being described.

A three-headed dog? Christians think God could be analogous to a three-headed dog? Literally might as well just worship idols instead. A three-headed dog does nothing to explain why one dog-head would be called Father and the other dog-head called Son.

The clay and the statue? That's modalism from the get-go, no need to go any further. Literally the same identical matter taking different forms at different times.

The time traveler? This is the same person at different points in time, traveling through time. There is no reason at all, though, to call one of those persons "Father" (or "Mother", since the example was a girl) and the other identical person at a different point in time Son/Daughter. She is not her own Mother just because she came from a different time.

And you know what I didn't hear hardly at all, if at all in the whole discussion? SCRIPTURE!!!! THE BIBLE!! We've got three-headed dogs and conjoined twins and time travel and clay statues, but what the Bible says is that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. The Bible says the Father is God of the Old Testament, the Most High God, the only true God, who sent His Son, Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the Most High God, in the last days to speak the words of His Father and to die for the sins of the world. It's just so simple.

I would humbly recommend considering calling anti-trinitarians "non-trinitarians" instead. "Anti" unfortunately indicates antagonism, which admittedly can be present in some people, but certainly does not mark the behavior of everyone who does not hold to a Trinity.

[daystargospel]

Anything quantitative only came into existence when time, space and matter began. Before that, you only have the infinite and invisible, the eternal Spirit - Elohim (John 4:22-24). The self existent One. He wasn't even Father, until time was introduced ("in the beginning..."). This means that the position of Father & Son are time introduced positions that are not eternal.

Psalm 2:7 KJV
I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; "THIS DAY" have I begotten thee.

The scriptures tell us that eternal life (Zoe) is in the Son. This "Life" can be nothing less than He who existed before time. He was then called "Father" once He created the Son ("the beginning of the creation of God" - Revelation 3:14).  This "being" called the Father is the source of ALL. In Him was "the Word", which is the visible, tangible expression of the invisible Father. This visible expression was the Spiritual(supernatural) form of Jesus that created all things. When Moses asked to see God's glory, that's the One, whose back parts Moses saw. This was Christ before He was made flesh. He could appear and disappear. One day, He appeared in the fiery furnace with the three Hebrews. Eventually, he was made flesh by the means specified in prophecy (through a virgin). He issued forth from the invisible One, and went back to the invisible One. No one has seen, nor can see the Father at any time, (1Timothy 6:16). However, when you see Jesus, He is the only visible manifestation of the Father, for He is a Spirit. That's why Isaiah said:

Isaiah 9:6 KJV
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given... ...and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Jesus Christ is God made tangible to us. (1 Tim 3:16, 1 John 1:1-3)

The Holy Ghost is the Spirit that dwelt in Jesus. It is the Father - God - the Spirit of the Lord.

2 Corinthians 3:17 KJV
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

[andryranivoarizaka]

Interesting. Thanks ! Many questions comes up to my mind then : If God is not composed of three distinct individuals who are in relatioship with each other (i.e., Father, Son, Holy Spirit), argument that allows one to run away from polytheism/tritheism, then how could God be love before being in relationship with humanity ? Can love be experienced and testified without any relationship ? Eventually, isn't the question of what poly/monotheism are the crucial question ?

[davidcoleman]

A little over an hour of discussion with no solution to the logical problem. The Achilles' heel of every iteration of trinitarian doctrine is composition. Every explanation here, excepting those indistinct from modalism, falters on divine composition. Every composite is caused and dependent. And since the doctrine of the Trinity (DT) affirms three really different (distinct) persons in one God, God is then caused and dependent.

[grneal]

I am even more confused than before. Trinity doesn't make any sense to me.

[DaddyBooneDon]

Would it be possible to suggest that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God in that they are expressions of the God of the bible? This might sound modalistic, but it allows for all the expressions to exist simultaneously, which might be challenging for other views that are historically identified as modalistic.

[thechristianmetaphysician]

There is lots of problems with Latin trinity